Network pricing to watch all NFL games in 2025

[SoCal Deek]

14 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

Isn’t that what schools systems do?  LOL. Or do they get paid by the kid in your district?

The school districts actually do get paid by the kid in California. They report their attendance on a specific day in early October every year and that sets the money they receive from the State. The teachers union then negotiates with the district on pay and benefits based on that funding figure. And yes, it quite often results in the union agreeing to larger class sizes in order to get the teachers a pay increase. It’s math. The more kids in the room; the more money the teacher makes. 

[WotAGuy]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The school districts actually do get paid by the kid in California. They report their attendance on a specific day in early October every year and that sets the money they receive from the State. The teachers union then negotiates with the district on pay and benefits based on that funding figure. And yes, it quite often results in the union agreeing to larger class sizes in order to get the teachers a pay increase. It’s math. The more kids in the room; the more money the teacher makes. 

I get all that, but to Einstein’s example, teachers get paid the same whether one kid shows up or 20 kids show up to class on any particular day. It’s not really relevant to the (off-topic) discussion. Teacher salaries are based on many factors in addition to class size, and are fixed for whatever the contract terms and conditions are over time. 
 

I think the library example is more relevant. Governments make books available for people to borrow and read, which takes away potential purchases of books people might otherwise make. Why is that not considered stealing, yet people watching a stream online that someone makes available are considered to be stealing?  In both cases, people are taking advantage of opportunities to consume something with no direct reimbursement to the source. 
 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by WotAGuy

[SoTier]

18 hours ago, colin said:

 

You and your friend seem to be pretty impressed with yourselves, but this is pretty well treaded ground.  Economic scarcity and IP have had a lot written about them, and it is very different from communal property, and way way different than slavery.

 

You might want to read something on the topic.

 

What has this to do with what I posted?   The poster I replied to originally implied that Americans in the past were more "moral" because they viewed theft as wrong.  I simply pointed out that Americans -- and many other cultures historically -- didn't consider "theft" bad when they or their society benefited from it.   

 

I'm not making any judgements about the morality of illegal streaming.  A lot of things that are morally wrong are not illegal while other things that are not morally wrong are illegal.   

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

I get all that, but to Einstein’s example, teachers get paid the same whether one kid shows up or 20 kids show up to class on any particular day. It’s not really relevant to the (off-topic) discussion. Teacher salaries are based on many factors in addition to class size, and are fixed for whatever the contract terms and conditions are over time. 
 

I think the library example is more relevant. Governments make books available for people to borrow and read, which takes away potential purchases of books people might otherwise make. Why is that not considered stealing, yet people watching a stream online that someone makes available are considered to be stealing?  In both cases, people are taking advantage of opportunities to consume something with no direct reimbursement to the source. 
 

 

 

Library? What’s a library? 😂 Regardless, it’s really not analogous. Current bestsellers are not available in the public library. You generally have to buy them in a bookstore or online. 

[WotAGuy]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Library? What’s a library? 😂 Regardless, it’s really not analogous. Current bestsellers are not available in the public library. You generally have to buy them in a bookstore or online. 

You must have a bad library. I can get best-selling books that have just come out, although there is a long waiting list of borrowers. 
 

In fact, a quick Google search of a book title and “pdf” will yield copies of all kinds of popular books, just hanging around out there in the ether. 

Edited 9 hours ago by WotAGuy

[SoCal Deek]

58 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

You must have a bad library. I can get best-selling books that have just come out, although there is a long waiting list of borrowers. 
 

In fact, a quick Google search of a book title and “pdf” will yield copies of all kinds of popular books, just hanging around out there in the ether. 

So if I’m understanding you correctly you believe that once an author, painter, or musician makes their work known/available it’s essentially open season and you’re free to take or consume their creative effort without any payment in exchange? If so, you really need to read The Fountainhead. 

[WotAGuy]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if I’m understanding you correctly you believe that once an author, painter, or musician makes their work known/available it’s essentially open season and you’re free to take or consume their creative effort without any payment in exchange? If so, you really need to read The Fountainhead. 

No. How you jumped to that conclusion is mind-boggling. 🤷🏻‍♂️

And an architect telling someone to read a book about an architect is rich. 🤣

I’m just pointing out examples of works/products that are out there, easily available and can be consumed at no cost. In some of these cases, it is not considered “stealing”, but they do equate to the viewing of football streams available online where the source of the work/products isn’t paid for by the viewer/user. Audience bootleg recordings of concerts are another example.
 

A really good example is at Chautauqua Institute, where you can literally sit on a porch in a rocking chair and see and listen to concerts in the amphitheater without having to pay for entry into the amphitheater. 
 

My point is there are so many of these situations that have led to people having differing opinions of what constitutes stealing. 

Edited 5 hours ago by WotAGuy

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

No. How you jumped to that conclusion is mind-boggling. 🤷🏻‍♂️

And an architect telling someone to read a book about an architect is rich. 🤣

I’m just pointing out examples of works/products that are out there, easily available and can be consumed at no cost. In some of these cases, it is not considered “stealing”, but they do equate to the viewing of football streams available online where the source of the work/products isn’t paid for by the viewer/user. Audience bootleg recordings of concerts are another example.
 

A really good example is at Chautauqua Institute, where you can literally sit on a porch in a rocking chair and see and listen to concerts in the amphitheater without having to pay for entry into the amphitheater. 
 

My point is there are so many of these situations that have led to people having differing opinions of what constitutes stealing. 

Mind boggling? Why? It’s the exact topic of the book. Architecture is simply the setting used to demonstrate the principle of artistic property. You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to justify ways in which you’re able to peek through society’s peep holes.